From: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
The forward declaration was introduced with a prototype that does
not match the function definition:
drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c:2166:13: error: conflicting types for 'xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange' due to enum/integer mismatch; have 'void(struct xgbe_prv_data *, enum xgbe_mb_cmd, enum xgbe_mb_subcmd)' [-Werror=enum-int-mismatch]
2166 | static void xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c:391:13: note: previous declaration of 'xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange' with type 'void(struct xgbe_prv_data *, unsigned int, unsigned int)'
391 | static void xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
| ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Ideally there should not be any forward declarations here, which
would make it easier to show that there is no unbounded recursion.
I tried fixing this but could not figure out how to avoid the
recursive call.
As a hotfix, address only the broken prototype to fix the build
problem instead.
Fixes: 4f3b20bfbb75 ("amd-xgbe: add support for rx-adaptation")
Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
---
drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c | 3 ++-
1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c
index 7d88caa4e623..16e7fb2c0dae 100644
--- a/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c
+++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c
@@ -390,7 +390,8 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(xgbe_phy_comm_lock);
static enum xgbe_an_mode xgbe_phy_an_mode(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata);
static void xgbe_phy_rrc(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata);
static void xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
- unsigned int cmd, unsigned int sub_cmd);
+ enum xgbe_mb_cmd cmd,
+ enum xgbe_mb_subcmd sub_cmd);
static int xgbe_phy_i2c_xfer(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
struct xgbe_i2c_op *i2c_op)
--
2.39.0
On Fri, Feb 03, 2023 at 01:15:36PM +0100, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
>
> The forward declaration was introduced with a prototype that does
> not match the function definition:
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c:2166:13: error: conflicting types for 'xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange' due to enum/integer mismatch; have 'void(struct xgbe_prv_data *, enum xgbe_mb_cmd, enum xgbe_mb_subcmd)' [-Werror=enum-int-mismatch]
> 2166 | static void xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c:391:13: note: previous declaration of 'xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange' with type 'void(struct xgbe_prv_data *, unsigned int, unsigned int)'
> 391 | static void xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Ideally there should not be any forward declarations here, which
> would make it easier to show that there is no unbounded recursion.
> I tried fixing this but could not figure out how to avoid the
> recursive call.
>
> As a hotfix, address only the broken prototype to fix the build
> problem instead.
>
> Fixes: 4f3b20bfbb75 ("amd-xgbe: add support for rx-adaptation")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
Reviewed-by: Simon Horman <[email protected]>
On 2/3/2023 5:45 PM, Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
>
> The forward declaration was introduced with a prototype that does
> not match the function definition:
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c:2166:13: error: conflicting types for 'xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange' due to enum/integer mismatch; have 'void(struct xgbe_prv_data *, enum xgbe_mb_cmd, enum xgbe_mb_subcmd)' [-Werror=enum-int-mismatch]
> 2166 | static void xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c:391:13: note: previous declaration of 'xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange' with type 'void(struct xgbe_prv_data *, unsigned int, unsigned int)'
> 391 | static void xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Ideally there should not be any forward declarations here, which
> would make it easier to show that there is no unbounded recursion.
> I tried fixing this but could not figure out how to avoid the
> recursive call.
>
> As a hotfix, address only the broken prototype to fix the build
> problem instead.
>
> Fixes: 4f3b20bfbb75 ("amd-xgbe: add support for rx-adaptation")
> Signed-off-by: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
Looks good to me.
Acked-by: Shyam Sundar S K <[email protected]>
Thanks,
Shyam
> ---
> drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c | 3 ++-
> 1 file changed, 2 insertions(+), 1 deletion(-)
>
> diff --git a/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c b/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c
> index 7d88caa4e623..16e7fb2c0dae 100644
> --- a/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c
> +++ b/drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c
> @@ -390,7 +390,8 @@ static DEFINE_MUTEX(xgbe_phy_comm_lock);
> static enum xgbe_an_mode xgbe_phy_an_mode(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata);
> static void xgbe_phy_rrc(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata);
> static void xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
> - unsigned int cmd, unsigned int sub_cmd);
> + enum xgbe_mb_cmd cmd,
> + enum xgbe_mb_subcmd sub_cmd);
>
> static int xgbe_phy_i2c_xfer(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
> struct xgbe_i2c_op *i2c_op)
>
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 13:15:36 +0100 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
> The forward declaration was introduced with a prototype that does
> not match the function definition:
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c:2166:13: error: conflicting types for 'xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange' due to enum/integer mismatch; have 'void(struct xgbe_prv_data *, enum xgbe_mb_cmd, enum xgbe_mb_subcmd)' [-Werror=enum-int-mismatch]
> 2166 | static void xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c:391:13: note: previous declaration of 'xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange' with type 'void(struct xgbe_prv_data *, unsigned int, unsigned int)'
> 391 | static void xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thanks for the fix. What's the compiler / extra flags you're using?
Doesn't pop up on our setups..
Hello:
This patch was applied to netdev/net-next.git (master)
by Jakub Kicinski <[email protected]>:
On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 13:15:36 +0100 you wrote:
> From: Arnd Bergmann <[email protected]>
>
> The forward declaration was introduced with a prototype that does
> not match the function definition:
>
> drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c:2166:13: error: conflicting types for 'xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange' due to enum/integer mismatch; have 'void(struct xgbe_prv_data *, enum xgbe_mb_cmd, enum xgbe_mb_subcmd)' [-Werror=enum-int-mismatch]
> 2166 | static void xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c:391:13: note: previous declaration of 'xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange' with type 'void(struct xgbe_prv_data *, unsigned int, unsigned int)'
> 391 | static void xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> [...]
Here is the summary with links:
- amd-xgbe: fix mismatched prototype
https://git.kernel.org/netdev/net-next/c/bbe641866318
You are awesome, thank you!
--
Deet-doot-dot, I am a bot.
https://korg.docs.kernel.org/patchwork/pwbot.html
On 2/7/2023 11:58 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 13:15:36 +0100 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>> The forward declaration was introduced with a prototype that does
>> not match the function definition:
>>
>> drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c:2166:13: error: conflicting types for 'xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange' due to enum/integer mismatch; have 'void(struct xgbe_prv_data *, enum xgbe_mb_cmd, enum xgbe_mb_subcmd)' [-Werror=enum-int-mismatch]
>> 2166 | static void xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>> drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c:391:13: note: previous declaration of 'xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange' with type 'void(struct xgbe_prv_data *, unsigned int, unsigned int)'
>> 391 | static void xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>
> Thanks for the fix. What's the compiler / extra flags you're using?
> Doesn't pop up on our setups..
>
Yes please. Even this does not pop on our build systems too. Would like
to know those extra compiler flags.
Thanks,
Shyam
On 2/7/2023 12:24 PM, Shyam Sundar S K wrote:
>
>
> On 2/7/2023 11:58 AM, Jakub Kicinski wrote:
>> On Fri, 3 Feb 2023 13:15:36 +0100 Arnd Bergmann wrote:
>>> The forward declaration was introduced with a prototype that does
>>> not match the function definition:
>>>
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c:2166:13: error: conflicting types for 'xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange' due to enum/integer mismatch; have 'void(struct xgbe_prv_data *, enum xgbe_mb_cmd, enum xgbe_mb_subcmd)' [-Werror=enum-int-mismatch]
>>> 2166 | static void xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>> drivers/net/ethernet/amd/xgbe/xgbe-phy-v2.c:391:13: note: previous declaration of 'xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange' with type 'void(struct xgbe_prv_data *, unsigned int, unsigned int)'
>>> 391 | static void xgbe_phy_perform_ratechange(struct xgbe_prv_data *pdata,
>>> | ^~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
>>
>> Thanks for the fix. What's the compiler / extra flags you're using?
>> Doesn't pop up on our setups..
>>
>
> Yes please. Even this does not pop on our build systems too. Would like
> to know those extra compiler flags.
Hi Arnd,
Gentle reminder!
Please share the compiler details / additional flags used to reproduce
this warning.
Thanks,
Raju
>
> Thanks,
> Shyam